Lots of great ideas...I myself never even got past the image of a raven somehow flying while wearing muleback cords, I suppose buffing up its birdly biceps so it can now carry, like, 15 pounds? (Strength 9 tiny creature carries...?).
But maybe try the new Called Shot rules in UC and see if it has a good chance now of pecking out the eyes of bigger creatures. Its size/dex bonus to attack and possibly bypassing natural armor and armor, if it's invisible and can get to the eyes, might be a nasty surprise, especially if it's got true strike or some nice attack buff. You could argue with GM that it has racial bonus to attack eyes, since, you know, that's what ravens always do in creepy movies.
Hopefully this will help. On a side note, if my calculations are anywhere near correct, you should be able to shave off about 42,000 gp (60,000 gp * .70) off the price if you take out the spell resistance 18, which leaves you mainly with a +5 armor, +4 resistance, and +2 vs spell resistance, with drawbacks. In short, not very impressive, but it's not bad for the price.
Yes, that does help, and thanks for taking the time. It's still a good demonstration for the PF makers of how much guesswork there is, but it does give me a good idea. Also, I forgot about those helpful 'restrictions' that bring down cost, which I'm sure did factor in. Mainly, once you get rolling with an item like this, it's all about the combo of many features in one slot, for which we pay throught he giant hairy nose, but understandably.
Thanks again, Ashiel, and I'd love to hear from the developers on this.
The multiple similar abilities discount is used when making items that have abilities that are tied to each other. For example, staffs have many spells, but only a certain number of charges, and all those spells use the same charges. Staffs receive the multiple similar abilities discount.
Yes, staves are an easier case, and in fact I loved making them before they died an agonizing death in PF (IMHO). In fact, that whole paragraph titled "Multiple SIMILAR Abilities" on p. 549 is pretty easy to apply. But I'm talking mostly about the lack of specificity in the "Multiple DIFFERENT Abilities" paragraph directly below that. "Abilities such as attack roll bonus or saving throw bonus and a spell-like function are not similar..." There is so much gray area here (are saves and AC similar, i.e., protective, or different? are two different type of save or AC bonus similar to each other? etc.), and this paragraph being more clear is where my example of reverse engineering the Robe of Archmagi could be much easier to apply.
Sidenote: the master list, Table 15-29, does not list PC-based attack bonuses, just weapon-based enhancement, i.e., ongoing Morale bonus via Heroism applies to a whole PC, not just one item...that would be great to see on the table.
Maybe someone can further clarify, or feels like working through the ArchMagi Robe example? Not that I would expect anyone to enjoy that, but hey, I'll check for it just in case.
I personally love creating items for high-level PCs, but the creation rules are not clear enough for my little brain. For example, I've tried to reverse engineer the crafting of a Robe of the ArchMagi ('please let me make a similar item but without the silly overpriced SR 18 feature'). Bu doing so is not clear to me, given the multiple abilities, and the importance to multiplier costs of whether different abilities are 'similar' or not (a poorly described concept, proably needing more examples).
Also, the examples they give for just picking an item and mimicking it with swapped spells don't always work. For example, the Lantern of Revealing is listed as the example for 'use-activated or continuous' in table 15-29, yet when I work through the example's math (and people say this hobby is for geeks, sheesh!), it seems the item should be twice as expensive, OR they cut the price in half again because the lantern just illuminates a slice rather than a full spherical spread? I could be getting the math wrong (would not be the first time), but my wrong ness or rightness in this case both examplify the item creation process being hard to use reliably.
Oddly enough, those of us who are afraid to get it wrong, not just cheaping ourselves but (even more so) giving ourselves too good of a deal, are likely the ones most concerned about using the rules. Those who love loopholes tend to love the item-creation vagueness and thus the ability to power up their PCs "legally."
Great thread...don't know if this was already mentioned, but if you're stuck on a plane and you don't have Plane Shift (7th level) spell, you can still get home if you have Dismissal (5th level spell) by targeting yourself! By default, when a creature is no longer on its home plane, it picks up the 'extraplanar' template. If you don't mind the 20% chance to go to wrong plane...beggars can't be choosers.
Why you would have Dismissal on that other plane, of course, is a different story...you aren't likely dismissing the natives there because in their home, they are NOT extraplanar. Very specific set of circumstances, but something I did not realize until recently, a PC I have who does not have plane shift but does have dismissal and getting caught on another plane. Oddly, it likely would get you out of a Maze spell, as well, unless DM is feeling unkind.
Speaking of Maze spell, if you're stuck in one and use the generally underwhelming "Monstrous Physique" spell to turn into a minotaur, lo and behold, the minotaur's 'natural cunning' is the quality that makes it immune to maze, and you get that...goodbye maze! (If you, um, are a transformer type who keeps this spell handy, of course.)
You can tell I am inordinately worried about Maze.
Fun thread to read, and kudos to those with a bit of bite making effort to shake hands...that's what these boards are partly about, no?
I am over 40. Back in the day (I said it!), we used to play a 12-hour game every other saturday, plus an 8-hour game every third sunday, plus whatever fast games we could manage after work during the week. We had one-off games, year-long campaigns, and everything in between.
Now, as an older guy, we all have families, more serious jobs, youth teams to coach, etc. We just don't have time, so we no longer track XP, and we tend to play game sessions between three and five hours long. Something that has not been stressed much is that time factor...it makes a difference.
Sometimes I make a PC based on a cool mini; sometimes on a rules combo I've been wanting to try. It varies! It's not always the same! I have a min-maxed wizard who did exactly what I hoped he could to, the last surviving PC in a near-TPK...very satisfying. Yet I also have a halfling rogue sailor who always keeps a fishing hook or two in his pockets...not because I found some number associated with that, just because that's something he would do.
I think the focus on numbers comes from the importance of combat as a focus...it's where the individual fantasy in each of our minds meshes with the shared reality of dice on the table. The validity of the peronsal ideas being suddenly group-real--yes, I really did just jump that chasm and land on the liches phylactery with my mithral high heels!!--gives extra weight to that event, and the numbers are the way that reality is created, or validated.
Yet we long ago determined that a good game means we laughed. Whether it's a tactical game all on one battle mat and in initiative the whole time, or a sideways exploration from the inn that is almost all roleplaying--and we, the same players as always, are capable of doing either--if we laughed, the game was a success.
Anyway, my two cents...we range in age from early twenties to mid forties. Some bring long histories and accents and portraits and concepts fromt the start, while others have a hard time forging a personality until a few games go by, then some event sparks them. We don't force anyone to do anything, but let the players play as they see fit.
It works...and we know we are lucky. We never walk away from the table, which would be unthinkable. We are friends, and the game is not allowed to come before the friendhip.
You could also go the story route. I don't know how you will be describing it, but perhaps there is a force field (i.e., whatever strength Deflection or Sacred or Luck bonus you feel is fair) that shimmers when it helps stop a touch attack. have this effect tied to the story or conversation, to the degree that you want the PCs to realize that they need to focus on that conversation as much as the combat.
Truly, as the DM, do you want them to be able to defeat the guy if they don't get the questions right? Take the storyline by the horns, and let the dungeon itself provide the bonus.
Just a thought...again, not sure of your style, the story, etc., the point being that you don't need to do it by the book as long as it feels fair in the end.
OP, have we answered your question? (This is my first post on this thread.)
The way i deal with stat optimization and dumping is to let it happen. I think the primary issue is that optimizing for the stats that affect rules-n-rolls has a clear, on-the-table impact. CHA, in particular, is the stat associated more than any other with RP/discussion-based encounters and challenges, where the characters can do their thing without die rolling. If the low-CHA PC artfully and amusingly get through an encounter in a way that might really work, many DMs will not then burst the bubble by saying, "that's fine, but make a Diplomacy check to see if it works." Contrast that to roleplaying how many hit points you have; you can use low CON as an RP inspiration, but no amount of roleplaying (in most campaigns) allows you to ignore your HP when you get hit in combat.
I do try to tailor my games to require clues and other CHA-based advantages that they might lack come combat-time if they blow it or have no social skills, but mostly I just live with the fact that dump stats are part and parcel with a numerical game system that gives players choice, which is what it is all about in the end.
One nice thing 4E did was the choice between two stats for the three saving throws, where CHA and WIS were the choices to affect your will save. You could offer that in your PF game, but I have no idea how many or disruptive the ripples would be from the particular rock in the pond.
Blue and Green dragons have a nasty ability that destroys liquid-based items in a ten-foot radius. An Adult blue that I ran recently removed 82 potions and related items in one fell swoop...many tears were shed. Just something to remember for those DMs who are looking to take their Alkies down a peg.
Greg Wasson wrote:
The tricky part is that if you did anything else that would cause the fatigued condition again...you became exhausted. So, if I read it correctly, ( and I may be wrong ) a second use of this supernatural ability would make you exhausted. This brings about a condition of -6 str/dex and half movement until one hour of rest bringing you to fatigued again.
* Yes, it makes you fatigued or exhausted quickly, but that's why it's great to cast hour 24-hour spell in the morning or while prepping those longer-duration spells before entering the dungeon...a potion of lesser restoration (which should remove fatigue) is worth the spell slot brought back. Using this ability in combat or time-critical situations is a move of desperation.*
Greg Wasson wrote:
* I don't know what the bloodline's familiar is...i read this as replacing the "summon familiar" ability, i.e., the standard wiz/sorc ability to have a permanent buddy. Was that in a different book, halfway between 3.5 and PF? *
Anyway, thanks for for the second opinion
This ability seems very powerful, especially given that it grants whole spells to cast in reserve. Also, it does not specify when to cast...must you be depleted (at least no more open slots that could power your desired spell) before using it? Of course, I would love to play the PC exactly as written (prep/non-combat spells + potions of lesser restoration, getting those slots back for combat).
Any errata or previous discussion on this? I haven't found any. Seems like a great deal in exchange for the familiar I would not use anyway.
It has been true, to my knowledge, for the last couple of editions that in round-based combat, casters do not get disrupted unless they take damage as they are casting, i.e., a readied action, or they casting is a full-round action that takes their full six seconds (like a summoning spell). However, the reason casters don't just wade into direct contact with foes is the act of casting also provokes the attack of opportunity, which is resolved as an interruption.
In early editions, when casting time and weapon speeds played together, you could start casting a five-segment spell, then one segment later someone with a three-segment weapon speed could start and finish their attack before your spell finished (this was within one-minute combat rounds)...so in the old days, yes, much easier to get interrupted in that sense.
But I've never been in any game where any attack on a caster forces them to possibly lose their next spell that they have not yet started casting.
You could not cast the spell as written without taking yourself..."personal" is the true range, unlike traditional "touch" spells where you can also choose to target yourself. "Touch" is a secondary effect, I think, that allows you to take others with you; however, because they could save if they did not want to go, we have to call them "targets" as well.
But I think the intent of the feat is not allow personal range, which teleport basically is. You target yourself...if you could bump the range twice, you would be able to target yourself at Close range. Still, the spell wants YOU to be the target, and only when the target receives the spell effect can the target touch others to share it.
I think the inclusion of the word "touch" in the range is unfortunate, and not intending that there are other targets of the spell. I think the Target line of the spell reveals the caster-centric range intended. Consdier the spell Chain Lightning...clearly demarcates the range, the under target it specifics primary and secondary targets. Should be the same principle for Teleport.
Is it in keeping with the rules/intent to assume that REACH SPELL allows you to teleport your entire party from short, medium, or long range without the need for bodily contact?
Interesting...the listed Range for Teleport is this: "Personal and touch." Since personal means nothing to the Reach spell feat, there is only one range component being increased, so I would say yes to that point.
BUT...taking more than one person with you breaks free of the intended effect of the feat, I think. The "touch" portion of the teleport spell is more a spell effect, and Personal is more the true range of the spell. The effect is to teleport yourself, but as a convenience, other creatures or objects taking you that you intend to take along are brought...they aren't truly subjects of the spell.
Check out either PF Bestiary Appendix 4, "Monsters as PCs," which details the process but not very clearly.
In summary, using the CR as "monster levels" is the primary rule, with some confusing stuff about slowly letting the PC "catch up" on those lost CR levels until 10th. No mention of how to deal with ability stats, but at least it's a starting point.
I recently made a 20th level PC, who has 19 class levels and hit dice, but two racial hit dice and one "level" of Lizardman.
I'm preparing a high-level sorcerer who gets Shapechange as a bloodline bonus spell; being stubborn, I'm going to try to use it. A quick perusal tells me only a couple of the many spell forms are useful, especially Form of the Dragon IV (unless you spend lots of wealth and PC choices building around polymorphing). But lo and behold, the shapechange list that seems so intuitively clean and neat letting you take the highest version of each spell trips and falters with dragon form...only lists level III.
Is this intentional? I mean typing a III instead of IV is clearly not a missed keystroke, but it still could be a mistake, like at the time Shapechange was written, Dragon III was the highest? Right? Or is 8th level spell just too high for a 9th level spell to include?
Another take on this feat (Step-Up) is that the five-foot step itself is troublesome to some players. Unlike other movement, it is supposed to represent a gradual sliding or shuffling over your six-second round, I think, rather than regular movement (running, charging, etc.). But in *real* world action (he said seriously), opponents engaged in combat tend to shuffle and slide after each other (towards a cliff, in slow circles, etc.), vs. hopping around in quantized movements interspersed with alternating attacks. This feat allows a PC (or NPC) mechanically to do this kind of shuffling, not-letting-you-get-away type of action, if they sacrifice some movement and make clear their intent to shadow their foe.
For this reason, I do believe the reach weapon holder should be able to shuffle and slide five feet after his or her chosen prey just like the regular weapon user...but some penalty to using reach weapons in adjacent square (-2 attack and just straight strength bonus sounds fair to me) is a good balancing notion for the extra spaces threatened, regardless of whether this feat is involved or not.
I recently ran an undead encounter in a dark and spooky forest. There were four Wights guarding the path (evil cultists beyond, must get past...). And PCs had to make tough perception checks to notice four Shadows hiding in the Wights's shadows. No special mods needed, the Shadows' stealth checks were just right to be unlikely but possible, and my description tipped off the careful listeners that something was weird as they approached with their various light sources.
Don't forget that as a paladin you have a link to a deity and represent that religion as well as the standardized paladin ideal. What are the tenets of your faith? Hardcore slay all evil, or kinder reforming of evil before battle? Also, just because your friend made a pact does not mean he has to follow it, right? Wasn't he just doing it to stay alive? So a minor evil act according to an earlier definition, but I would think it's redeemable.
Plus, think of the fun campaign implications if at later levels the cheated devil shows up to collect his due...
I, too, have played a gnome ranger. He had shining white hair and beard. His name? Hio Silver, the Gnome Ranger. Thank you.
Back in 2e when specialty priests were new and so cool, I brought a kobold priest of Kurtulmak into a 7th-level group-vs-group Con game. Based on the visuals back then, he was more dog-like than reptilian. He circled his sleeping bag three times before settling down to sleep, for example. He was extremely weak and afraid of everything, basically played for fun and RP.
In the end, however, when the two parties collided, everyone on the other team assumed he must be a bad-a** because most of them had not played against a "monster" PC, and he drew everyone's fire. It was such an inefficient use of their resources, it helped our team win, but my kobold did not survive the second round; both sides enjoyed his colorful demise, and everybody got a piece.
I often make new PCs based on figurines, the old metal ones I painted myself. By sticking to a particularly interesting fig, I avoided the same old number-golem and same favorite combos that I would otherwise be drawn to use. I also enjoyed figuring out, based on the PC's level and wealth allotment, what items he wore on his belt, his gloves, his boots, etc.
And if an intersting fig wore scale mail, that PC had scale mail.
No reason for the fatigue.
Well, unless the DM specifically wants that epic sense of a few hardy souls surrounded by enemies battling through the night (didn't Drizzt Do'Urden and company do this through a hellish night against literally hundreds of trolls?)
I would say, however, that your point is well taken...in a normal setting, getting to the point of fatigue should not happen (except barbarians, who get fatigues in about a minute if they rage).
If the PCs are fighting generally lots and lots of dudes who really can't hurt them individually but can tire them by sheer numbers, maybe it's a periodic saving throw as outlined above. You could get warhammery and start taking morale into account based on nearby standards and leaders and occupying quadrants of the field, etc. But if the battle lasts that long, against opponents who are themselves not so interesting to battle, somewhere around the two-hundredth kill of a 3-hp goblin pooface, interest will wane.
The rules that I recall for this sort of thing existed in the 2nd edition Combat and Tactics book, which I believe outlined an optional system for fatigue points. Pretty realistic (well, you know what I mean), but still ended up being an extra stat count that we did not want to do amidst all the other number crunching.
A Forsaker. I had a friend who played an epic level Forsaker who would carry around a backpack full of Wish Scrolls to tear up at the beginning of combat. Ridiculous character, that one.
That's the class. I never got past about 8th level (overall Character), but I did have a nice ritual of smashing potions against my forehead when activating my powers...kind of a remnant of the Rage I gave up to change alignment. My party knew to throw minor items in the "juice bag" to keep me powered up.
Yes, you did lay it all out for everyone, which I appreciate. Be advised, however, that the PDF links for the PCs scared me away...flashing ad-filled windows popping themselves open and not directly one-click to see the sheet, so I ended up never looking at them. The map, however, was a single click, nothing scary happening on my screen, so very easy to read and see.
Others may have had the same reaction, or maybe just missed the links; the only indicator I had that the PCs and monster and map were links was their slightly different formatting on my screen, so I can see folks missing them if their browser or screen itself does an underwhelming job of highlighting that for them.
Give it time, though...I expect by day's end you'll have some pretty creative solutions thrown your way.
I have seen it mentioned in a few different threads that the PF handbook describes that the number of attack rolls made for a round of combat is not actually representative of the true number of attacks. In other words, that the attack roll is only representative of effectiveness, and in combat, lots of little parries and thrusts are happening all the time, many not landing or doing anything worth tracking individually by dice. I remember this being very sensical in a one-minute combat round, but since 3.0 and the 6-second round, I have thought this less than sensical.
This is mostly trivial, but there were some rule discussions where it became important. I never saw the claim backed up with a quote, however, directing readers to the actual language...just assertions and reassertions that it was there. Can someone please point me to that actual page? I would not only like to see proof that it exists, but also to read whatever nuggets may be found in such a discussion.
Maybe it is in a really obvious place and I've just been blind...please direct me. If no one can send me to the actual language, I would assume it was never really there.
[edit: several posts above came in while I typed this...including the spell I was looking for. I did not have a chance to look at the PDFs of the PCs...sorry!]
Uh...wow. So by "lured you into it" do we take it you had a chance to avoid this battle but went for it anyway? Maybe you're not supposed to win!
I'm assuming you are restricted to the arena magically, i.e., no flying away through the roof or tunneling into the ground?
I don't know. I think summoning something (creature or effect, like wall of force, "transmute ground" spells) that keeps it busy is a high priority to start with. You might want immunity to poison for the breath weapon...the bite, too, but if the bite gets you, you're likely already done. Immunity to acid, too, or some other way of avoiding breath weapons altogether.
A good punch-through-SR spell would help (not sure off-hand which ones come from 3.5 to PF, but I'm thinking the one that targets a single creature for SR -10 or +10 on CL checks for the combat). There was a nifty spell in 3.5 that was the CL version of true strike, but here we're talking about things your PCs would already need to have, which doesn't help you much.
But these things you likely thought of already, and you're looking for the cool secret trick...I'm not the guy who has that, but I'll keep reading to see who does.
I once played a 3.0 barbarian/monk who changed alignment between classes when a magic item blew up in his face in a temple (don't remember the exact reason). It was legal; by becoming lawful he lost his rage powers and other barbarian powers associated with being chaotic, but that was the only legal fallout. He then went on to be that prestige class where you destroy magic items to get cool powers, but you are not allowed to use magic items or benefit from spells (had to attempt saves vs. healing, etc.).
Or something like that...
I think muddied water is certain in this case. When a spell description specifically states an effect that counters the general rule, I take that to mean that it is an intional breaking of the general rule, ostensibly because the general rule does not quite do the specific case justice.
I would therefore read this spell as doing exactly what is says regarding targeting an object in possession, i.e., "wielded or employed" vs. the general "attended" rule. However, in the case of magical objects being harder to affect, maybe you do give it the save it would normally get in the general case, whether attended or unattended, worn or wielded or employed. Note, this would have to be its own save if unattanded, because in that case there is no creature wielding it to give it their save in its place.
Definitely muddy waters.
There is an economic reason that golems are more nasty than zombies: you get what you pay for. For the true financial cost (versus the abstract cost of your soul, for example) of one flesh golem, how many zombies could you create and control? [Many!] Would it be a fair fight pitting the zombies against the golem, even assuming you could control all that you created?
As for alignment, I agree that a creature being inherently dangerous to civilization does not make it evil. In the real world, for example, there's only one out of billions of species that would qualify (well, maybe monkeys that throw their own feces would also qualify).
In the obligatory RPG that I always wanted to write and kind of started writing, I was going to treat corporeal undead as identical to constructs, meaning you would attack them as you would a collection of objects that jumped off the shelf and attacked you...it's basically what they are, and the traditional undead immunities are basically covered (trying hitting a stool or a pipe wrench with an illusion or sneak attack, for example). At higher levels the creator could add intellect and so forth, but at low levels, they were literally puppets on a magical string. The rules don't support it that way in D&D/PF, but I always liked the concept.
A friendly warning to you, Diabhol: actually answering OP's original question may be harmful to your health! My similar answer did not include conan at all (was about the 1st ed berserker "monster"), yet later posters seemed to read "conan" assertions into my posts. Not sure why...I think because the title of the thread is conan. Be warned!
And I love the thought of Vultan the Barbarian...with wings, right? Hopefully he's not a Raptoran from 3.5, the mighty winged race that had to rest every few rounds of flying. (No wonder they never got much press.) Brian Blessed even does Shakespeare like a barbarian.
Not that I have a problem with the many conan posts...lots of literary discussion as well as interesting PC-build talk, making me want to finally read Conan.
I see it that the first save avoids entirely, but after a failed save, continue to save each round to deal with the grease that is now coating the item. Unfortunate langauge, but I do believe that was their intent.
I also had the same impulse to check Father Dale's assertion, and went looking to wave the "attended" language around to counter him...and found not "attended" but "used and employed", so he is right on target, and a nice subtle aspect of the spell (grease the sword just before the dude tries to draw it...and because he does not get the save to avoid, it's greased for sure).
This thread is called Conan The Barbarian.
True, but OP's question was this (emphasis mine, otherwise direct quote in its entirety): "i have been keeping track of the new Conan movie coming out next year and was wandering if Conan is my major inspiration for playing a Barbarian what are other peoples inspirations for playing Barbarians"
So conan discussion is perfectly on target, but I was trying to answer the original question and had noticed that there were many more posts about conan than those answering that basic query...other people's inspirations for barbarians. I think the 1e berserker "monster" was an inspiration for the class as a whole as well as for many players, so it also fits the topic...imho.
But conan is a fascinating figure worthy of much discussion, and I've been enjoying the talk about him as a PC, as well as some mentions of other inspirations. I'm sure OP has enjoyed it, too.
Read Frost Giant's Daughter, Carpjay, Conan wasn't a berserker. He was an alcoholic, but not a Norseman either. The Norse descend from the Aesir and the Vanir. It is suggested that Conan was the descendant of survivors of Atlantis.
I make no mention whatsoever that i think Conan = berseker. I am answering OP's original question about different inspirations for barbarians. This thread became a discussion of conan, I was getting back to the original question.
Odd, in this whole thread I only saw one mention of berserkers. Those of you who have ever read the old 1st edition Monster Manual will recall when "Humans" (I think that was the term) were a long entry with different subtypes, including everyone's favorite, the Berserker (drawn from the Norse tales mentioned earlier in this thread).
I believe the Unearthed Arcane 1st ed. Barbarian (along with the first Cavalier and Thief-Acrobat) was a response to the demand from loads of players who saw that "monster" type and wanted a piece of it as a PC. Berserkers gained bonuses driven by battle lust, which I believe is the real source of the Rage power we have inherited today.
A different approach would be the way that Rolemaster (MERP, anyone?) did it. To cast a spell successfully, you were generally making something akin to an attack roll, and your modifier base stemmed from your level, stats, etc. If you tried to cast really fast, you added negative modifiers to this roll, whereas if you took extra time, you added a positive modifier...but ran the risk of being interrupted, etc.
Applied to PF, this might look like letting you cast as a standard with penalties to range, attack rolls, SR checks, damage, whatever...but holding it to a full round negated the penalties, and taking even longer gave bonuses.
However, it strikes me that this is a significant alteration, and one that could end up getting boofed really fast (quicken spell, wands and staves, etc.).
Mark A. Simmons wrote:
I can't find it, but there was quite a sturdy thread recently about the hydra being wimpy for its CR. However, in that thread I think the breath was overlooked in the original question. I certainly posted that I thought the breath was the main threat. Many posters in that thread echoed what we've also seen here: that ganging up, particularly from a distance, works well on these guys but one or two attackers up close could be in for real trouble.
From Majuba: "As for the silliness about not being able to move through a square: under "Moving through a Square"
Core Rulebook, pg.193 wrote:
My arm is permanently attached to my body, but that doesn't make it hard to use.
Imagine a sword is glued--forever--into your fist: that's more like a saddle glued to the mount. Useful in certain situations, but a pain in others, and that's not even getting into the flexibility issue of a saddle or sword perhaps not working properly when glued absolutely in place (such as fingers sliding around for different swings and defenses).
However, it's up to player and DM, and I think there is a good range of answers in this thread.
another way to challenge them is to have two different elements attack them...start with the well covered scenarios, starting with one PC waking up just as the dagger hits him in his sleep, doing damage to him but not a full-on coup do grace. After a round or two of PCs getting out of bed, summoning their enemy-party-slaying cheese and maybe doing prep for a band of rogues, have a kraken or appropriate CR creatures attack as well.
If the main intent of this combat is to really challenge them, something like this might work, especially if they seem to be very confident about what to expect.
I'm not sure what numbers you are talking about...creation costs? PC abilities? CR level of your PC as a template, for comparison with other PCs in the group? Especially given that you don't know yourself what level you are starting at. So we might give some guidance that the item should cost 87K to create, or is a CR+4...but then you find out you start at 3rd level. Does the cost prohibit you from playing the PC?
But the first thing that stands out to me is that the "PC" you will be playing is more like a construct with a soul or spirit and sentience, and the effect you describe sounds like Magic Jar. Perhaps your DM can rule that your PC is a living ring with a soul and mind (tied to the ring as your body instead of an elvish or human body, for example), and it has permanent/at-will magic jar ability versus any living being that puts it on.
The ability seems very powerful, but it also depends on living beings to move you around to different bodies...if you don't have any specific influence between fingers, you might end up in a drawer somewhere, or a goblin's pocket.